I had both of these lenses on my glass upgrade list and now that I got a deal on a Canon refurb 16-35, is there any greatly added utility to having a 14 along with my newly acquired 16-35? Would I use both?

Please explain. Physically, the 14mm gives you around +/- 3 deg FOV on a FF. Is the difference in IQ worth having both? Since you are so bold in your statement, do you own both?

Yes, I have both.

The 16-35II was first. About a year or so later, I got the 14.

There is a difference between the two. If you want to go that little bit wider or can't step back any further, that leaves the 14, unless you like a fisheye. I am not a pixel peeper , nor do I judge simply based on corner sharpness.

However, I do find the 16-35 to be more useful. I happen to like that range.

I've had two Canon 14mm f2.8L MkII's, both were the biggest let down of any Canon lens I have used and they certainly don't deserve to be L lenses. Corner softness and CA are not good. I have found the 15mm fisheye defished to be better in IQ than the 14mm L, no, I am not joking.

Depends on what you want want the lens for, the only reason I see for the 14 is if you need the widest angle AND AF, if you don't need good fast accurate AF then the TS-E17 is a vastly better lens and, with a simple auto stitch, goes much wider. If you do need AF I'd still rather use my 15mm and defish as needed.

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

According to TDP, the 14 has about 6 deg greater HFOV. In practice, it feels a lot wider than 16 than the 2mm indicate. The 14 is better optically than the 16-35: sharper and less distortion. I never liked the 16-35 much wide open. It's soft (compared the the 14L, TS-E 17), and the bokeh is nervous wide open. If you intend to shoot indoors, then every mm counts. If you're outside and can move, then the focal length difference isn't that significant and the 14's advantage is allowing you to get closer and "magnify" or stress foreground features more. I tend to use the 16-35 when travelling light, but if I'm bringing more gear, the 16-35 stays home in favor of the 14 and the 17.

I use the fisheye (defished), 14, 17 and 24mm to shoot houses depending on the size of the space. Outside, the 17 is useful for large buildings, but I prefer the 24 for landscapes (especially for stitching). First evaluate your 16-35 and determine whether or not you need to go wider, and as danski0224 suggested, try the 14 before buying it. The 14 is expensive (I got mine used at a good price) and does suffer from CA (although I've had better corner performance experience with the 14 compared to defishing, unlike privatebydesign), and you might find that 16mm is sufficent for you.

Thanks, I know about the FOV difference. I needed qualitative responses.

Do you? The difference isn't so much the FOV but what the lens does with the extra FOV. The wrapped looking distortion of the 14mm is much more prominent than the 16-35mm at 16mm. There is much more difference in the two than the little 6 degree and 2mm numbers show.

I have owned both and these are my opinions;The 16-35mm is a usable all around zoom lens. The 14mm is a specialty lens on a FF camera that you have to work at your picture to use its unique abilities.The IQ is better out of the 14mm than the 16-35mm at 16mm. Comparing the 16mm framing to the 14mm framing is an apple and orange comparison.

I've had two Canon 14mm f2.8L MkII's, both were the biggest let down of any Canon lens I have used and they certainly don't deserve to be L lenses. Corner softness and CA are not good. I have found the 15mm fisheye defished to be better in IQ than the 14mm L, no, I am not joking.

Depends on what you want want the lens for, the only reason I see for the 14 is if you need the widest angle AND AF, if you don't need good fast accurate AF then the TS-E17 is a vastly better lens and, with a simple auto stitch, goes much wider. If you do need AF I'd still rather use my 15mm and defish as needed.

+1 The TS-E 17mm is a cracker. You would have to really, really, really want to go wider for the 14mm to be worth the money and in some ways I wonder if the Zeiss 15mm isn't a better option as a sharp prime than the 14mm anyway. Obviously at extra cost but what a lens.

I'm a mechanical engineer so I probably understand optics better than most. Qualitative opinion is what I am seeking. What will the extra 2mm and 6 deg FOV give me beyond the physics and math?

Either more time in post process correcting distortion.Or more time composing your picture to either use the distortion to your benefit or hide the distortion.Did you factor those in.

Qualitative opinion is the 14mm II is the better lens and produces better IQ. But I wouldn't buy the 14mm unless you want to go wide, very wide. The IQ difference of these two lenses is not the reason to take one over the other. The IQ difference is not significant compared to the wide factor. It would be a non issue IMO with these two. One other issue with the 14mm, would be filters.